If Stephen Paddock Fired Into A Black Crowd At A Rap Concert, Half the Country Would Be On Fire

There is an alarming difference between black and white reaction to tragedies.

The screeching media would have zero doubt as to the “motive.”

If Stephen Paddock opened fire on a crowd of 22,000 mostly black attendees at Rick Ross rap concert, the media would have “a motive” in three seconds. Media personalities would be at the top of their lungs screaming for impeachment. Al Sharpton would be leading “peaceful demonstrations” as they burned through downtowns. The nation would be at an absolute fever pitch of hysteria — and it would all be racist Trump’s fault.

I’m talking wall-to-wall coverage of shrieking morons with no fragmentation of opinion: nothing but unilateral consensus across the media, the academies, the government, Hollywood and the mob: “no one would attack a crowd of 22,000 blacks at a rap concert unless it was Trump’s fault.”

Yet 22,000 mostly white conservatives attending a country concert — no motive found.

And for some reason, the country is not at a fever pitch. Cities aren’t burning. Everything is on edge — but it normally is. Most strangely: it’s been three days and the screeching media “hasn’t found a motive.”


Do I imply that this multi-millionaire psychotic murderer was an Alt-Left terrorist, who possibly gave $100,000 to ISIS in the Philippines and who specifically targeted white, Republican, Trump supporters?

No. I have no evidence of this.

But I do thank God that cities aren’t on fire. And I wonder what this means for us as a country: why would we have allowed the media to invent a motive and incite riots to burn down cities if Paddock gunned down blacks — but not whites? And what does this say about our expectations from the media? Is this not an admission that the media only exists to incite the mob?

Maybe the expectation of civility in a tragedy is the real “white privilege.”